Both of you are attaching meanings to that text that may or may not be true. So far, no one of consequence agrees with your interpretation.

Since I'm not a giant douchebag and don't claim to be an expert on everything, I look to people who understand these things to fill in the gaps. Like, for example, Senatorial staff. Who aren't claiming costs as a reason to oppose the treaty.

The treaty calls for the creation of a level of government to monitor the enactment of the treaty for things WE ALREADY DO.

It calls for "international cooperation in implementation" of the treaty, which means The bank of the US is open for business.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. You can just designate that function to the body we already have to deal with ADA-related issues.

Your second point is just dumb. It doesn't. The treaty makers may hope poorer countries get money to help pay for it but the treaty certainly doesn't compell it.

Treaties generally have two parts. The first part is aspirational bullshit. The second part is what you actually agree to do. It is sorta like the declaration of independence vs the constitution. The first is pretty language but it doesn't actually mean anything legally.

Nowhere in that second part is there anything about the U.S. paying for other countries to do what the treaty says.

If you sign a treaty saying you'll send fifty tanks to Israel you have to pay for the tanks. But no one - not even the retarded RWNs - are saying the U.S. will have to do anything new to be in compliance with the treaty obligations.

What RWNs are doing here is like going through the declaration of independence and saying it forbids capital punishment, discrimination against gay people, and doing anything which impedes anyone's happiness. Because it guarantees the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and says all people are born equal!!!1111

You only have to do what a treaty makes clear you have to do. Aspirational bullshit means nothing.

I mean just look at the stuff our resident retard Koneg is posting in this thread that he thinks supports his position:

"The convention calls for the “progressive realization” of most of its provisions, in line with the resources of individual countries. Some steps will require money and for countries where resources are scarce, it is hoped that international assistance—which has neglected the needs of persons with disabilities—will help."

Doesn't sound much like the UN thinks there's an obligation now does it?

Mindless liberals love a great title. I get the idea they are really too lazy to get much beyond that. You really want the UN deciding on our rights?

Click to expand...

Uses the UN as justification for taking away the life and rights of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people... Says he doesn't think the UN has the right to give disabled people the time of day...

You clearly have no idea how many $billions were spent retrofitting buildings to meet code. Not to mention all the space that was lost to a purpose that provides minimal utility.

Click to expand...

Your definition of "drag on the economy" and my definition seem to be at odds.

As a reminder, the economy is not a zero-sum game. That business A spent $5000 rebuilding the stairs in front of their building does not mean the economy lost $5000 - it means that $5000 went into a different segment of the economy and pumped that up.

Which brings us right back to... oh yea, your absolutely bollocks claim.

If you spend $20 on a hammer, the economy now has $20 and a hammer. If you spend $20 on a DVD, the economy now has $20.

Click to expand...

** boggle **

OK you're just farking with me now aren't you? Either that or swirly_comodore h@x0r3d your account, because this post reaches a special level of stupid reserved primarily for Darwin candidates.

PaulTheBeav said:

The money we spent retrofitting buildings to be handicap accessible did not.

Click to expand...

So when a business hired the architects, contractors and laborers to design and retrofit their building, ALL that money just vanished from the economy? It didn't perchance go to pay the salaries of the architect and contractors? The materials suppliers? The trash company to haul off the cuttings? They got NO money from the building owners and therefor... what? Worked for free? The roach coach and local eateries in the area didn't see an increase in business during that job? The gas stations in the area provided no smokes, no snacks and no fuel to the workers that were coming in and going out every day?

It's amazing how the folks here reflexively oppose anything their betters on the right tell them to oppose, without having any knowledge whatsoever about why they should oppose it.

The reasons Republicans gave for voting against it are basically: Black helicopters! UN!! Blue helmeted guys will take away your kids!!! Another step in the loss of sovereignty of the US!!!! ARGLBARGLE!!!!! In other words, the usual right wing fear-mongering.

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities failed to capture the 2/3 vote needed for ratification in the U.S. Senate today due to fierce Republican opposition. Many Republicans and their allies in the conservative movement claimed that the treaty codifies abortion into law, even though that preposterous claim was rejected by the National Right to Life Committee and Sen. John McCain. Along with the false charges about abortion, opponents of the treaty claimed it will undermine U.S. sovereignty and harm children. Critics like Rick Santorum warned that the treaty may kill his disabled daughter; Glenn Beck said it could create a “fascistic” government and Sen. Jim Inhofe alleged the treaty would help groups with “anti-American biases.”One of the lesser-known but extremely active opponents of the bill was homeschooling activist Michael Farris.During an interview with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, he claimed that the treaty will prompt the United Nations to ‘get control’ of children with glasses or ADHD and remove them from their families.

You walk through life with blinders on my friend. It's ok to take them off every now and then.

Click to expand...

He's just flat wrong about this.

There is no substantial monetary price for signing this treaty. I can find no mention of it in the news, don't see anything that can be remotely construed as an actual call to financial support in the treaty itself and didn't see anyone in the Senate referencing cost as their reason for opposition to this. It's the latter part that really sinks in with me. If there was even remotely a chance this would cost money, Republicans (and blue dog Dems) would have been all over it. It's perfect political cover.

This is a-typical ultra right-wing UN paranoia that does not deserve serious consideration

Click to expand...

Again with the indefended terms. What you you call "substantial"? I can bet it will be over a million but under a trillion. To me 10 bucks is "substantial" but liberals seem to be very loose with other people's money.